“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Many reactions, many patterns of reactions, are rejected by the ego upon some occasions and accepted upon other occasions, but as a rule such alternate behavior is annoying to the ego itself. The ego deals with cause and effect, and often denies particular reactions because it decides that they are not effective. The ego is fairly rigid, comparatively speaking. Rationalization is one method by which the ego justifies its acceptance of a reaction which it once rejected as ineffective.

As the number of rejected impulses grows, more and more energy is of course concentrated in this area, the energy that is inherent within the impulses themselves. This sort of grouping together of rejected impulses will occur mainly when the ego’s restrictions are too severe, so hampering that very deep and basic needs of the whole personality are being denied expression. It is therefore for the benefit of the whole personality that these impulses be given expression.

It feels the concentration of energy that has collected to form the rejected action patterns, and indeed it may feel that this unified rejection pattern is then even an enemy to its own superiority. It may, with more force than ever, attempt to hold back the expression of these impulses, and its fear of them grows.

That which was is constantly taken into what you call the present. The ego may choose to use or not use various reactions. It may reject various reactions as a part of the past, for it is the ego alone who is concerned with past, present and future. The ego’s denial of a reaction however does not cause the reaction to disappear from within the personality, at least as part of possible pattern reaction.

[...] However, when the ego carries its categorizing tendency too far, it may reject whole areas of significant action which has been experienced by the whole personality. It may choose to reject whole areas for various reasons, usually out of a mistaken fear that the actions involved threaten the permanence of itself.

Such a rejection is definitely an impeding action. It is this rejection on the ego’s part that is the basis for so-called neurosis in many cases. [...]

It is when significant actions, important to the whole personality, are so rejected that the difficulties arise. [...]

As a rule, secondary personalities are given their energy as a direct result, so to speak, of a too-rigorous and rejecting ego. [...]

[...] You both believe (a) that people will not understand, and (b) that they will feel rejected, and (c) that they will reject you, and you will be left quite alone in the solitude you thought you wanted.

You feel that your needed solitude implies a rejection of the world. [...] You fear that that person will feel the same rejection that it seems to you your mothers felt.

When you were a boy and went off by yourself to draw, your mother often acted rejected. [...]

[...] They will accept your reasons, which can be stated clearly so that they do not feel personally rejected.

[...] When an attempt is made to reject an emotion, this does not affect the emotion half as much as it affects the individual involved. The act of rejection in itself is detrimental and doomed to failure.

[...] An ego who can, and has at one time or another accepted as part of itself a violent and unruly desire to kill, for example, will not automatically reject the emotion of hatred. [...] An ego which once accepted such an idea of violence, and knew it as a possibility of action, such an ego, if he then rejects the conception, can no longer afford, ever, to recognize this once acceptable emotion, for he is only too aware of the action that could have at one time developed.

The rejected emotion, in other words, will express itself in any case, but it will do so then as a rebel, outside of the organizational directives of the ego itself. [...]

[...] Obviously, to some degree every conceivable sort of inclination is latent to the ego, but it is apparent that each ego has its peculiar set of adopted characteristics, its set of characteristics that it sometimes accepts and sometimes rejects; and it is obvious that some characteristics simply seem alien to any given ego.

[...] I wanted to point out the important point however, the rejection on your part, as well as the attraction or the reason for the offering. [...] But the habit of rejection, generally applied, (underlined) is a limiting one.

[...] Your attitude was a rejecting one in general—that is, it was a reflection of a deeper pattern of negative thinking.

[...] But an overall pattern of rejection should be watched. [...]

Automatic rejections therefore should be avoided. [...]

It begins to reject stimuli, because stimuli must be reacted to, and it rejects action because action must be reacted to. Therefore it chooses areas of rejection. The areas it chooses to reject are determined by characteristics that are unique to the particular ego.

[...] In the particular personality’s case, perception becomes also limited, and rejections occur. In this as in many such cases foods are rejected. In many such cases the ego itself chooses to perceive only within those areas where it feels safe, and it rejects more and more any involvement that it can avoid. And now the ego has the self-created ulcer to blame, and it rejects many foods, for foods are symbolistic of involvement.

An illness can be rejected by the personality. The habit of illness can be rejected. [...] When action is allowed to flow freely, then neurotic rejections of action will not occur; and it is neurotic rejections of action that often cause unnecessary illnesses.

Even a quick and automatic rejection or withdrawal from such stimulus is in itself a way by which consciousness knows itself. [...]

Now, in so far as everything is basically action, the personality is affected by outside agencies, but in a most basic manner it chooses those actions which it will accept or reject.

[...] So if he gives in to an impulse to cry then he feels he forces you to behave in a stereotyped male way—in a role you have rejected, and rightly so.

He also feels that crying is dependent in a feminine way, and goes against the fact that he has rejected the stereotyped feminine role. [...]

In the face of possible rejection, which old attitudes now and then make him expect, he adopts a rigid rather than flexible stance. There is no reason to expect such rejection to begin with. [...] Again, the point is that he covered up the fear of rejection, and tried to minimize the place of importance that the chapter has for him.

To him in this case an attitude: “I can take it, in case of rejection.” [...]

[...] But he was afraid to grant himself that release for the old fears of rejection stop him.

[...] On February 16—(2 days after Valentine’s Day) they wrote a letter of rejection.

However, I knew that if you knew I had spoken earlier you would feel rejection, and I do not want you to feel rejection—except when I want you to feel rejection! [...]

The thought may be rejected, but there will be something to reject. [...]

You were the one who could really hurt him if he let go, by your rejection of his emotional dimensions, he felt. [...]

Your answer, “Get up, or go into the other room,” he interpreted as the basic rejection.

He may then in the beginning want you particularly when you are working, to prove the point that he will not be rejected.

[...] Postponement of reaction can then lead to a pattern of rejection, for you are rejecting the expression of your own emotions. [...]

[...] If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater validity as an act than the one you chose.

[...] Here the rigid assumptions of normal waking consciousness often fade, and you can find yourself performing those physically rejected activities, never realizing that you have peered into a probable existence of your own.

[...] When it seemed you were rejecting him this aggravated his own doubts. [...]

[...] Then, discovering that he was, after all, fallible, I felt betrayed; and worse I felt for some periods that he rejected me. [...]

[...] It is as if the sky then decided to reject the black clouds and then, through association, decided to reject the white clouds; and, through association, to reject anything at all that might appear within it. [...]

[...] Another portion has so far withheld complete commitment, though the rejection seems greater by contrast. In others the rejection would come close to commitment, but for him this is not enough.